|
Peanut President posted:Shoot it into europa then build a big rear end monolith. "ALL THESE ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE". Done. If you go that far you can just shoot it into one of the gas giants directly, there is no reason to pollute a potentially viable terraforming target.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
I'm one of those people who sees terraforming as near impossible anyway. *shrug*
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
Mississippi, a place having less fun with beer than Utah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Why is Russia investing so much into the Netherlands? If the articles I've read on how our government reaches to foreign politicians with loads of cash acquired in a less than savory manner are right: They like our tax rates for P.O.Box Companies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:If you go that far you can just shoot it into one of the gas giants directly, there is no reason to pollute a potentially viable terraforming target. Some theories say life might be possible in the upper layers of Jovian planets as well. So to be sure, better to shoot all that waste onto a lifeless rock moon like Amalthea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
That's a function of population as much as # of breweries though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
But...it says 'per million people', they're already explicitly taking population into account.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:But...it says 'per million people', they're already explicitly taking population into account. I'm more focusing on the West because having two breweries in Idaho is equivalent to 20 in California even though the former is only half the size of the latter. In other words, just because you have lots of breweries doesn't mean there's an equivalent access component.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
And between the two you have a hell of a margin of error. With those two maps, you can pretty confidently say that Mississippi (with some three million people) has a handful of craft breweries (if any) and that California (with around forty million) has hundreds. With the floors and ceilings set as they are, it's hard to tell whether (say) Washington or Oregon have more breweries despite their drastically lower population. This map that was posted a few pages ago (8000x5333 so I won't even thumbnail it) is at least somewhat better in that you could at least count them up. Not that you should because America is home to a crapton of breweries and that would probably take an hour or two. Or you could blow 90 bucks on a print version. For the record, that map says Mississippi and Arkansas have three breweries each - Puerto Rico and DC beat them out - and that San Diego alone has more breweries than most states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Why can't we just take a abandoned mine and just fill'er up? We might need the stuff as fuel in 1000 years, sticking it in a mine seems fitting. Because the very last thing you want to do is have it get into the ground water supply. So rather than just dumping it into an existing mine pit, you go one step further, and look for an area that's geologically stable enough that you minimize the risk of that happening. Yucca Mountain (and a similar plan in Finland I think) are in essence just dumping the stuff into giant mines, but they're engineered for the purpose of holding stuff in, rather than getting stuff out. Peanut President posted:Shoot it into europa then build a big rear end monolith. "ALL THESE ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE". Done. People already get antsy when we launch carefully engineered RTGs into space. Good luck convincing anyone to allow a launch of nuclear waste. Also, it's usually heavy as all hell, so your launch costs would be enormous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 14:27
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
"Th-this place wasn't designed to keep people out... it was designed to keep something in!!"  
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyKe-HxmFk
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:"Th-this place wasn't designed to keep people out... it was designed to keep something in!!" The Mongols sure did bring things together for China, didn't they? Sure they killed millions in the process, but break a few eggs, etc. Does the use of CE/BCE instead of AD/BC bug anyone else? I see no use to it, the established convention works just fine. If you're trying to be less Christian, well its a Christian calendar based on the life of its prophet so good luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:The Mongols sure did bring things together for China, didn't they? Sure they killed millions in the process, but break a few eggs, etc. It's not really something to get annoyed over, it just indicates that it's being used without religious intent. "In the year of our Lord" would literally indicate that you're a Christian, whereas "Common Era" doesn't (same as "Western calendar" which is the common secular version in Japan and Korea). In English it's not such a big deal, of course, but in many languages the BC/AD equivalent is actually seen as the more politicised one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:Some theories say life might be possible in the upper layers of Jovian planets as well. So to be sure, better to shoot all that waste onto a lifeless rock moon like Amalthea. Why not Australia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Why not Australia? Australia already has the largest collection of deadly plants and animals in the world, and you want to make them radioactive? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Australia already has the largest collection of deadly plants and animals in the world, and you want to make them radioactive? Don't give Abbott ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
It's an arbitrary point in time used as a reference for counting years, so what if it were started with a religious meaning, getting people to use a common calendar is important for science, commerce, etc. Christians being completely pissed off about not being pandered to at every turn is par for the course when you're trying to make progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
EightBit posted:It's an arbitrary point in time used as a reference for counting years, so what if it were started with a religious meaning, getting people to use a common calendar is important for science, commerce, etc. There's still legitimate discussion that the prime meridian makes the world Eurocentric though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Kennel posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository  That looks like a pretty cool movie though
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's still legitimate discussion that the prime meridian makes the world Eurocentric though. And we worked hard to make it so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's still legitimate discussion that the prime meridian makes the world Eurocentric though. Or Anglocentric, rather. If it didn't run through London but Paris, you can bet your rear end the British would be violently clinging to their own weird and nonsensical standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:The Mongols sure did bring things together for China, didn't they? Sure they killed millions in the process, but break a few eggs, etc. CE/BCE makes more sense because Jesus was born around 7 years before Christ (BC).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:CE/BCE makes more sense because Jesus was born around 7 years before Christ (BC). No it doesn't because nothing happened in the year 1 that made it the common era. It's just as nonsensical. If it was like Before Zero and After Zero that's basically the only way it would make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
This is all the more reason to push space colonization so we can rename our date system to "After Colony". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Is English the only language to use Anno Domini? It seems like other languages just use the local equivalent of Before Christ and After Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
EightBit posted:It's an arbitrary point in time used as a reference for counting years, so what if it were started with a religious meaning, getting people to use a common calendar is important for science, commerce, etc. It's actually the complete opposite of arbitrary, the date was chosen with purpose. And I'm not Christian. I just don't see how using CE instead of AD is somehow more neutral; all it does is try to paint over the christian-ness of the christian calendar. I like history, so I don't like the practice much. Zohar says this is a bigger deal in non-english languages, which could certainly be the case. Disco Infiva posted:CE/BCE makes more sense because Jesus was born around 7 years before Christ (BC). That is a neat point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's still legitimate discussion that the prime meridian makes the world Eurocentric though. I mean, it does, but completely by chance it also happens to be one of the best places.   When your alternatives are slicing Eurasia in half (and putting some of the most populated parts of the world right on the peripheries) or heaven forbid centering the world on New Zealand I think we can all cope with some Eurocentrism. This is like the map projections argument; don't completely change standards for other standards that aren't really better anyway, just teach people to stop assessing how important a place is based on something completely stupid. edit: on reflection the non-distorted Pacific is actually pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Does the use of CE/BCE instead of AD/BC bug anyone else? I see no use to it, the established convention works just fine. If you're trying to be less Christian, well its a Christian calendar based on the life of its prophet so good luck. Not really. At the very least, CE/BCE are in English, so it's easier to explain to a youngster. Since we need to have some sort of arbitrary zero, and there's no obvious better date to choose, I'm content with the status quo. Unless of course you're willing to pull stuff like false biasing. In that case we could just arbitrarily decide to designate one particular year as the year 10,000 or something. I'd pick 1950AD if only because that's the "Before Present" value that gets used for carbon dating, and that's pretty impartial. Then at at the very least, all of recorded history is in the positive range. You could go even further and designate 1950AD as like year 5 Billion, and then all of the Earth's history is within the positive range. But good luck convincing anybody to go along with either of those. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
We should reset the calendar to have  be year zero. Because after that everything changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Obviously the only impartial start date for the calendar is the Big Bang. It might be a little awkward writing out ten-digit years all the time, but it's the only way to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Obviously the only impartial start date for the calendar is the Big Bang. It might be a little awkward writing out ten-digit years all the time, but it's the only way to be fair. Your linear conception of time is not fair. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
We should set the current time to [some arbitrary number] Before New Common Era. Not only is it completely fair, it would also give people in the future something to look forward to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:No it doesn't because nothing happened in the year 1 that made it the common era. It's just as nonsensical. If it was like Before Zero and After Zero that's basically the only way it would make any sense. Gregorian calendar starts at that year, that's why it was used. We thought that in year 1 was the birth of Christ, so we used that as starting point. After we found that he couldn't be born at that time, it was much easier to rename the naming convention to something that is arbitrary by default, than to push the start date for about 7 years or who knows by how much. It's much harder to tell people that tomorrow is 22.3.2021. AD, than to tell them that tomorrow is 22.3.2014. CE. Of course, for those that don't care that Jesus was born before Jesus, that point is moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:We should reset the calendar to have Would the eleventh of september be the start of the new year under this system? Also 11/9/911 A911 is going to be off the loving chain. A Buttery Pastry posted:We should set the current time to [some arbitrary number] Before New Common Era. Not only is it completely fair, it would also give people in the future something to look forward to. This combined with the tomb of nuclear evil is a recipe for success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Everyone should revert to regnal dates, or presidential dates. e: Actually I got a birthday card from a Japanese woman I know which was dated in regnal years, that was pretty cool I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Everyone should revert to regnal dates, or presidential dates. In day to day life, regnal dates are fine but they suck for historical purposes. 200 years from now Obama 6 or Heisei 26 won't really mean anything to anybody, but 2014 will. Romans mostly used regnal dates but even they realized it was poo poo for history and that's why sometimes they also used Ab Urbe Condita dates which just counted from 753, the traditionally recognized year that Rome was founded. We should use AUC too because it would be 2767 and that would be badass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
We should just use the approximate date of the invention of writing, as that's basically the start of recorded history, the invention of our greatest technology, and puts everything relevant to the study of humanities in the positive year range.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
EightBit posted:We should just use the approximate date of the invention of writing, as that's basically the start of recorded history, the invention of our greatest technology, and puts everything relevant to the study of humanities in the positive year range. But then as the approximation gets more accurate all the dates for everything will change, it would be cool if we could define it based on some kind of universal constants like the speed of light 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
 not really political but interesting with the current search in in the southern Indian Ocean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:22
|
|
